http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0009/
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 3:52 pm
Comments Off
Authors
Archives
Categories
Search
Quick Hits
Recent Comments
Links
Meta
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0009/
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 3:52 pm
Comments Off
A couple of weeks ago I did an analysis of the jobs in the first JFP. I’ve now updated and expanded this to include the second JFP and the web ads. I’ve also done a more detailed breakdown of the jobs than last time. Since this goes on for a while, I’ve put it in the extended entry.
Read the rest of this entry »Posted by Brian Weatherson at 9:48 pm
Can I claim first dibs on Harry Potter and Philosophy, or has that already been taken? Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 6:05 pm
The task, if a labour of Hercules can be called a task, John sets is to count the errors in a particularly error-ridden passage. The problem is that the number of errors a passage contains is not obviously determinate. For example, assume the passage contained the following argument.
All philosophers are positivists
So, all philosophers are bad people
At first glance it looks easy to say how many errors that contains. Two. False premise and invalid reasoning, right? But that’s not obviously charitable. It’s often wrong to regard arguments that are invalid on their face as thereby defective, for they may be enthymemes. The question then becomes what the hidden premises might be. Perhaps the following two premises are intended to be the hidden premises.
Being a positivist is a mark of bad character
Anyone who has a bad character in one respect is a bad person
Now the argument is valid, so one of the errors is gone. But now the argument contains three errors, not two, for all three premises are false. But maybe that’s uncharitable, for the hidden premise might instead have been
Being a positivist is a mark of bad character and anyone who has a bad character in one respect is a bad person
And now we’re back to two mistakes. But even that might be excessive, because maybe the hidden premise was intended to be
Either some philosophers are not positivists, or all philosophers are bad people
And now the argument is valid and only has one false premise. So it only contains one mistake. So heaven knows how many mistakes it really had.
Now for the special holiday touch. By a rather tendentious interpretation of Quine’s “No entity without identity” dogma, and the fact that mistakes in arguments do not have determinate identity conditions, I conclude there are no mistakes in arguments. And if there are no mistakes in arguments, there are no mistaken arguments.
If I was going for the post-Thanksgiving Day snark award I’d say this was the best bit of news blogger X had received all decade. But any award Brian Leiter can’t win is an award I don’t want. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 12:05 pm
Comments Off
The link is:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/tar/comments.xml
Thanks to Adam Pisoni for the suggestion and the instructions for how to set this up.
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 12:16 am
AAP2004 ~ Conference Information
It doesn’t look like it will be cheap (I wonder if is it warm enough to sleep on the beach at that time of year) but it should be fun.
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 1:06 am
Comments Off
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 1:02 am
Comments Off
Non-symmetric Relations. Forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 1, ed. Dean Zimmerman, OUP.Merricks on the Existence of Human Organisms. Forthcoming in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 2:55 pm
Comments Off
Bad news! Because of space considerations, it has to be trimmed back to the length it was in August. The current bloated version deals with some good objections that Liz and Cian and Jonathan and, especially, Gabriel made at BSPC. Now I’ll have to trim away to get my replies to their good objections in.
Good news! The referees for the paper wrote very helpful comments on, among other things, just where the paper should be shortened, so I at least have an idea on what to do here. The value of good referees in philosophy can hardly be over-stated, and I’m always grateful for their existence. (And no, I’m not saying they were good referees just because they accepted the paper.)
Anyway, time to work on revising that paper. (And updating the CV!)
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 2:50 pm
Comments Off
Moral Particularism and Thought Experiments
Against the Unity of the Virtues
Contextualism and Luck, Moral and Epistemic
The Coming of the Cyborgs
Posted by Brian Weatherson at 1:27 am
Comments Off